- Joined
- Feb 25, 2008
- Messages
- 23,773
- Reaction score
- 25,077
Are we sure about that? Usually that's not public information for the informants safety.Lol. You answered the wrong question. Im asking you to answer the right question.
You’re aware she’s not a prison informant, right?
You know it's going to be redacted. Any victims' identities along with pictures/videos of illicit activities with underage women will be redacted. Do not set an impossible standard here. None of us need to see that. As far as names of people in the files, do you think their information should be released even if there is no proof they abused any under age women? I struggle with this one, but looking at how the left is using the Epstein files to lob unfounded allegations of child abuse at anyone they feel like makes me see why they'd redact some people's info. If someone is only mentioned in the files for bringing Epstein his coffee one morning, do we really want to risk the mob making that person's life a living hell and implicating them in crimes they didn't commit just because their name is in the files?Good question.
How can she provide new information when she’s been in jail for 5 years now? What tangible evidence would she be capable of providing, and why now?
Again, any deal with Maxwell that doesn’t include the release of the entirety of the Epstein files would be a violation of duty by the administration.
Low iq poster doesn't understand why someone in power would want to make a deal with someone who can blow up their position of power.
If she had info to use against Trump, Biden would have released it. You guys love to avoid that fact.